• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: British Purchase California in 1841?

SinghSong

Well-known member
Location
Slough
Pronouns
he/him
During the Spanish colonial era, the Californias (i.e, the Baja California peninsula and Alta California) were sparsely settled. After Mexico became independent, it shut down the missions and reduced its military presence. And the British minister in Mexico, Richard Pakenham, wrote in 1841 to then Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, urging him "to establish an English population in the magnificent Territory of Upper California", saying that "no part of the World offering greater natural advantages for the establishment of an English colony... by all means desirable... that California, once ceasing to belong to Mexico, should not fall into the hands of any power but England... there is some reason to believe that daring and adventurous speculators in the United States have already turned their thoughts in this direction."

But this was more than just a sentiment; this was part of a detailed proposal, with the plan itself having originated in 1837, whereby the British would agree to waive Mexico's crippling debts to British bond-holders in exchange for the territory of Alta California. A significant number of influential Californios supported annexation by either the British or the USA, but Pío de Jesús Pico IV, the last governor of Alta California, supported British annexation. Melbourne's government had purportedly been amenable to the prospect of going ahead with this proposal; but the time the letter reached London, Sir Robert Peel's Tory government, with its Little England policy, had come to power. And Lord Palmerston's successor, Lord Aberdeen, who was far more conciliatory towards the United States than Palmerston had been, rejected the proposal as being expensive and a potential source of conflict.

But what if it hadn't been left so long, and been rejected by Palmerston's successor- what if the letter, regarding the proposal, had actually been sent by Pakenham and reached Palmerston earlier; with Lord Melbourne's cabinet deciding to authorize the proposal to purchase Alta California in exchange for waiving Mexico's debts before the votes of no confidence in the summer of 1841 manage to oust him from power, and a royal charter subsequently being signed by Queen Victoria to establish California as a Crown colony, much as New Zealand had been less than a year prior? How do you feel that British California would fare in this scenario?
 
What are the boundaries of British California?

Below are the boundaries of Alta California before the Mexican-American War.

1656949936826.png

I could foresee the British telling the Americans that if the US abandons claims to Oregon, the British would surrender large slices of the California interior to the United States. The US probably annexes more of North Mexico. With San Francisco and Monterrey Bays in British hands, the US will likely have a stronger desire for ports like Guaymas and Mazatlan.
 
Uh just to spot check-would this offer have actually been accepted by Mexico?
According to the British ambassador to Mexico at the time, in said letter, yes it would have; it was even implied that it was the Mexicans who'd made the offer, to sell Alta California to the British in exchange for having their debts to British bond-holders waived. And for the governor of the territory at that time, and his administration, annexation by the British was the preferred option, over independence, continued Mexican rule or annexation by the US.
 
Very interesting. Need a vignette set in Angel City, the largest city in the Dominion of California.

Edit: And I wonder if the provincial capital might find itself in Fresno or Cambria (probably with a different name; though Cambria is funnily fitting), in a situation similar to that of Canberra or Ottawa, as a compromise between the large and presumably rival cities of Angel City and Saint Francis.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the doublepost, but it just came to me; outside of the more obvious ripples on Manifest Destiny, it presumably also leads to an alternate Mormon migration, or, a Mormon minority in British territory? As Lennock says, the borders of Alta California actually cover a lot more than what we know as California. If Utah is in British hands, this prevents the Mormon march west (or at least, makes it harder, presumably?). No Mormons, no Salt Lake City, and as I remember reading elsewhere on SLP, no Mormon settlement might butterfly away Las Vegas and a lot more western development. Even if these areas are later ceded to the United States as part of an Oregon-California deal, things are still thrown up in the air, and I honestly wonder whether British negotiators might actually instead offer to cede more of Oregon in exchange for keeping California, which is presumably the much more profitable colony with a better future, Canada be damned? The United States might also prefer this, as they could get Vancouver as well as Seattle as western ports to offset the fact they never gain San Fran or LA.
 
Britain having an extra chunk of North America surely nobbles the Monroe Doctrine as a thing America can believe in and boosts (IIRC already widespread) British financial and political involvement in South America. I can see a lot of US-UK rivalry from that, add in California and the US both bordering Mexico means two powers gazing at Mexico. Dunno if that's better or worse for Mexico than just one. (Does it mean the Second Empire gets to last because the Empire has an interest in keeping it going or does France's "let's put a king there" plan never work if London's more interested in the area?)
 
Its a bit boring but I don't think that the British would really go for this when there are already a bunch of Americans present eying up annexation and part of the justification for settling the Canadian border issue peacefully was to free up the US Army for potential action in Mexico. If the Brits are pushing a renewed North American policy then there is probably some form of confronation either in the North or the South.

The Mexicans also still refused to accept that Texas was independent and were willing to militarily dispute the border right up until the Mexican American war and deposed a President for even hosting an American delegation to discuss a sale of the territory. I don't see them just selling off a huge chunk of land to a third party.

If the British try to make a separate deal with the governor could possibly see a crisis over the issue, the Americans were making noises at the time that they'd fight to keep California Mexican rather than British I believe. Palmerston was a hot head so I can see him playing hard ball but risking a two front war thousands of miles away to back up an illegal landgrab seems a bit a much.

An Anglo-Mexican-American war for the fate of North America would be something to see however though it most likely would be an Anglo-Mexican-American War Scare.
 
My guess is that the price of the US keeping quiet about a British California would be Britain acquiescing to American interests in Central America and North Mexico.

The US may perhaps grab everything north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus the Yucatan Republic.

The British raised a fracas over the US trying to make Honduras a protectorate such that it could set up a dry canal from the Caribbean to the Gulf of Fonesca. That might go differently here.

1657152396868.png
 
Last edited:
What are the boundaries of British California? Below are the boundaries of Alta California before the Mexican-American War.

[SNIP]​

I could foresee the British telling the Americans that if the US abandons claims to Oregon, the British would surrender large slices of the California interior to the United States. The US probably annexes more of North Mexico. With San Francisco and Monterrey Bays in British hands, the US will likely have a stronger desire for ports like Guaymas and Mazatlan.
Without needing them as to connect territory they already held with the coast as was the case with the US I can't really see Britain being all that interested in Arizona or Utah. Hell, does Nevada have anything to recommend it in its own right before silver deposits were discovered? I do like the idea of the UK and the US splitting Alta California – perhaps something along the lines of the UK taking the whole entity, but then in turn ceding everything east or our timeline's California and Nevada free of charge as part of a treaty recognising the border.


Very interesting. Need a vignette set in Angel City, the largest city in the Dominion of California.
That depends on how the fights over water rights go.

Which reminds me that I really need to get back to looking at Northern Californian independence at some point.


Britain having an extra chunk of North America surely nobbles the Monroe Doctrine as a thing America can believe in and boosts (IIRC already widespread) British financial and political involvement in South America.
Certainly in the Republic of New Granada. The Panama Canal Railway was constructed between 1850 and 1855 going on the become one of the most profitable lines ever. With the UK wanting better access to California this likely means that it will be built by British interests. We might even see an earlier creation of Panama be engineered if the government in Santa Fe de Bogotá becomes too forthright.
 
Back
Top